There are four philosophical issues surrounding toleration: (1) What is it? (2) What does it require? (3) When is it required? and (4) Why is it of value? The first two are conceptual questions and often--perhaps entirely, in contemporary work--conflated. It is now assumed that whatever its complete definition, toleration requires non-interference. That was not always the case. The third question is of paramount importance in normative political work. Disagreements about how to answer this question divide liberals and other moral and political thinkers into different camps. The fourth question seems to many today to be unnecessary since everyone
proclaims to think toleration important. There are good arguments that
defenses of toleration are still needed; historically, of course, they
were extremely important.

Key works

Historically, the most important figures discussing toleration are, arguably: Saint Augustine (Letters), Baruch Spinoza(Tractatus Theologico-Politicus), Pierre Bayle (A Philosophical Commentary), John Locke (Letters Concerning Toleration), and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). For a recent conceptual analysis of toleration, see Cohen 2004. For a collection with a good indication of various recent debates, see Williams & Waldron 2008.

In the last decade and a half the process of desecularization has been undoubtedly verified in Serbia. Not only that the changes have been verified in the religious complex in general, but in traditional religious groups in particular as well. The revival of religiousness and people’s attachment to religion and church have been clearly proved in all aspects of religious life: in the areas of religious identification, doctrinaire religious beliefs and ritual religious practices. It should also be noted that in (...) times of extremely turbulent political and social changes in the Balkans, all traditional religious complexes, orthodox, catholic and Muslim, began forming close ties with political and state, public and binding domains, which was absolutely unthinkable of a decade and a half ago. Which leads us to the crucial question: can religion make a contribution to the process of integration coming form the surrounding countries as the imperative of foreign powers on one hand, and as the striving of the majority of population in all the post socialist countries in the Balkans on the other hand, or will it only cause damage and interfere with the process of integration of those societies into the European commonwealth of nations? This article discusses different opinions that view the traditional complexes of religion, language and nation as disruptive factors of modernization of the Balkan countries, as well as completely opposite opinions based on the experiences of traditional Islamic societies in which religion is not a factor that hinders their rapid modernization. (shrink)

Does it transform conflicts into productive tensions, or does it perpetuate underlying power relations? To what extent does tolerance hide its involvement with power and act as a form of depoliticization?

There are diverse cultures in the world – cultural diversity, as well as the tendency of eradication of cultural diversity – cultural entropy. At the same time, the domination of modern culture – the culture of homogenization – is increasing. Cultural explosion was preceded by the Neolithic revolution, after which cultural implosion followed the industrial revolution. Two theses are questioned in this paper: that cultural diversity is a value to humanity, and that homogenization of culture is an inevitable tendency in (...) the cultural evolution of Homo sapiens. The main thesis of this paper is that there are two parallel processes of homogenization in post/ modernity: biotic homogenization and cultural homogenization. We can empirically recognize both tendencies in the process of globalization. It is paradox that cultural diversity and biological diversity are protected while homogenization of culture and biotic homogenization are criticized, while at the same time, the global tendency of cultural implosion is continuing. The results of an empirical research of opinions about cultural diversity perspectives in the world will be presented as the empirical foundation of the mentioned discourse. The topic of the research is the validation of cultural diversity, especially traditional and modern cultures. It was conducted on three groups of subjects: students of art, humanistic sciences and technical sciences. The results are analyzed regarding the fields of study, religiousness, political orientations and gender of the students. (shrink)

In the Netherlands, the traditional and famous ‘culture of tolerance’ in the past few years surprisingly became associated with the laxity, half-heartedness, even negligence and indifference with regard to serious problems in a multi-ethnic society. For the time being, a polemical use of the term dominates: tolerance as an aspect of our western ‘superiority’ against barbaric fundamentalism. To regain some grip on the – at least in the Netherlands – apparently ‘hollow’, even politically and morally dubious concept of tolerance, the (...) author returns to the genealogical ‘founding forge’ of the term, the civil war fought in the name of religion in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe. He demonstrates that tolerance was a key-category in a tiring, centuries-old process during which a ‘Gordian knot’ – the congruence of political power and religious faith – was being abandoned. The historical case-study of the dissident preacher John Bunyan and the early Quakers in seventeenth-century England shows, that during the Age of religious Discord political, social and religious themes are inseparably intertwined, not only from the point of view of the defenders of the status quo, but also from the standpoint of the religious dissidents and their ‘illegal’ preaching. In the intellectual history one can witness the birth of the early-modern concept of a minimal, political concept of tolerance. In a negative sense, this was a departure from attempts to uphold or restore the unity of ‘true faith’ by political coercion. In a positive sense it implied the sufferance of dissident faith and religious practices by a political power ‘in order to prevent the worse from happening’. In this process, political power became more and more an autonomous institution, above society. This minimal, political concept of tolerance has been surpassed by the state-sanctioned, juridical freedom of religion. This implies the democratic disjunction of truth and justice, that is, the recognition of an equal, reciprocal right of everyone to live and articulate his or her own truth. This legislation must be supported by a civic and social culture in which tolerance as an ethical virtue is being practiced and cherished. The most exacting form of tolerance is an attitude which tries to overcome the democratic disjunction of truth and justice, in the direction of an ‘oikoumene of religions’ or a ‘fusion of horizons’. But this subtle attitude can easily slip into an ‘idolatry of difference’ and a laissez faire-tolerance, as seemed to have happened in the Netherlands. In the final parts of this introductory essay the author presents the four articles in this thematic edition of Bijdragen: studies on Cusanus, Spinoza and Leibniz regarding tolerance, and an essay on the problems of dealing with alterity. The author concludes with the contemporary dilemma of tolerance. Should the future form of tolerance be based on universalism accompanied with the political neutralization and privatization of religion, nation, culture? Or should tolerance in a globalizing world be fed from particular traditions and sources? (shrink)

This article focuses on the difficult issue of what exactly goes on when an individual tolerates something. It focuses on the problem of why an individual would ever choose to allow for some practice that he deerns unacceptable while having the power to do something about it. After distinguishing between different attitudes , this article argues that individuals can have various reasons for deciding to tolerate what they deern wrong. As such, we defend a broad conception of tolerance, which goes (...) against the grain of recent literature in which tolerance is generally understood as a virtue. (shrink)

The article analyzes the concept of diversity, focusing on its use in the context of social and cultural changes. The relationship between assimilation, multiculturalism, and diversity is discussed, in terms of historical developments in European immigration patterns and government policies. The related topic of transnationalism is also addressed. Various uses of the term 'diversity' are critiqued, and the implications of diversity in terms of society, organizations, and individuals are discussed. Examples involving European labor markets are cited.

Rainer Forst's Toleration in Conflict is a significant contribution to the important topic of toleration. Its critical survey of various arguments for and around toleration is thorough and rigorous. However, although Forst's argument for the respect concept of toleration is persuasive, the claim that this is a tolerant theory of toleration located at a higher level than other arguments is perhaps less so.

Some of the post-socialist countries of Europe experienced after the fall of communism what some called a religious revival. Anthropologists and sociologists alike were sure that they discovered serious evidence against the case of secularization theory. What unfortunately most of them failed to observe was the particular shape and form of this religious growth and the structural changes of the religious mentalities occurred in the process of transition from a closed, ideologically monopolized society, to a pluralistic one. After more than (...) half of a century of atheistic ideologization of the public sphere, Romania remains one of the most religious countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. The thesis of this article is that this fact is due to the lack of modernization of the Romanian social system both before and during the post-socialist period. (shrink)

This paper considers recent arguments from Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor that argue that even secular societies ought to tolerate religion for its practical benefits. Then, taking inspiration from Thomas Aquinas, I critique their positions as misconstruing the nature of religion in two fundamental ways. First, we must distinguish generic religion as a natural virtue from diverse species of faith that go beyond the duty to render homage to the First Cause. It will be seen that, generically, religion is integral (...) to the common good inasmuch as it is essential to the perfection of the intellect’s search for truth. Second, from this it follows that religion ought not be justified in utilitarian terms of extrinsic benefit; rather, the good of religion is the intrinsic realization of the activity itself. In light of these correctives, I conclude that even secular societies ought to encourage religious belief, while remaining open to a variety of faiths. (shrink)

With some qualifications, this article endorses Brian Leiter’s argument that religious accommodation should not shift burdens from believers to non-believers. It argues that religious believers should take responsibility for their beliefs and for meeting the demands of their beliefs. It then examines the implications of that argument for British law on indirect discrimination (disparate impact) as it relates to religion or belief: burden-shifting from believers to employers and providers of goods and services should be deemed acceptable only insofar as the (...) burden incurred by the employer or provider is ‘insignificant’. Legal exemptions should satisfy a similar test. Why should there be religious accommodation at all, even if it entails no significant burden-shifting? The author agrees with Leiter in finding the most plausible answer in the claims of conscience rather than in general theories of equality or features special to religion. Those claims can reasonably be made in respect of liberty of conscience but also when conscience is merely disadvantaged. (shrink)

‘Reply to Horton’ gives four reasons why Horton's attack on Kekes' earlier article fails. In particular Horton fails to make the case that we have a moral obligation to do more than we already do towards relieving poverty through the taxes we already pay.

The paper deals with tolerance and intolerance on the background of the tensions existing between the moral “No” and “Yes”, between the initial rejection of the values, beliefs of the others and respecting them. An indifferent tolerance of the people incapable of saying moral “Yes” or “No” is unveiled as an attitude emptied of spiritual and moral contents. It also shows the dilemmas of morally convinced people when facing the normative request to tolerate the values and beliefs of the others. (...) The conflict between “Yes” and “No” becomes the most burning if one’s moral belief is grounded in the existence of independent moral truths. In the light of Nietzsche’s critique of tolerance as “an incapability of Yes and No” the author asks the question, whether respecting moral truths is compatible with tolerating deviations which would go beyond the benevolent attitude of the believers to those morally confused. (shrink)

The article focuses on examining the distinct nature of persecution. In the article I argue that on the grounds of common historical cases of persecution an account of the core components of the concept may be established. The core comprises three central elements: asymmetrical and systemic threat, severe and sustained harm, and unjust discriminatory targeting. I will conclude the paper by suggesting that none of the components alone make persecution anything distinct. However, the simultaneous occurrence of the components may be (...) argued to amount to a separable class of harms that are among the worst-case scenarios for those having to endure them. (shrink)

Contemporary moral philosophy has different approaches to provide justice and equality to groups that are traditionally discriminated on the grounds of gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. On the other hand, functionally diverse (disabled) people have had a parallel approach to their discrimination, excluded from mainstream diversities. Including functional diversity and the diversity model in modern recognition and redistribution theories, as another human diversity, provides an extended ethical approach: diversity ethics. This general framework also includes other fundamental ideas for equality (...) such as human fragility, social domination logics, self-respect and auto-recognition. Diversity ethics provides sound foundations to defend justice and equality for all human diversities and an alternative to other approaches that broaden the moral community, excluding some humans, like Peter Singer’s ethics. (shrink)

In his book Terror in the Mind of God Mark Juergensmeyer writes: ‘Perhaps the first question that came to mind when televisions around the world displayed the extraordinary aerial assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, was why anyone would do such a thing. When it became clear that the perpetrators’ motivations were couched in religious terms, the shock turned to anger. How could religion be related to such violent acts?’. That question – ‘how (...) can religion be related to violent acts?’ – is the question Susan Mendus addresses in this article. She discusses the concept of toleration; the specific problems associated, historically, with religious toleration and the differences between modern and historical understandings of religious belief. Her overall aim is to see whether the history of religious tolerance and intolerance can offer some lessons to us, now, in our attempts to secure political peace in the face of religious conflict and religious violence. (shrink)

The paper focuses on demonstrating that, in spite of the controversies, lobbying has become an important political communication tool for churches and religious organizations in the United States and in the European Union as well. The American highly regulated lobbying system is compared to the lowly regulated system working at the level of European institutions. The following analysis highlights the differences that the two environments have generated in terms of the main issues and tools used by churches and religious organizations (...) in order to influence policy-making, mainly in the framework of the pluralist - corporatist dichotomy. While the American religious lobbying has been very efficient in influencing the public policy regarding issues like the health care reform, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion etc., the most significant result of the European religious lobbying has been the recognition of religious communities as partners of dialogue for the European institutions. (shrink)